Mdletshe v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/9163/2013/128(1)(P) NCA) [2014] ZANCT 7 (30 January 2014)

Mdletshe v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd (NCT/9163/2013/128(1)(P) NCA) [2014] ZANCT 7 (30 January 2014)

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 128 of the National Credit Act, as there was no evidence of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute with the credit provider prior to approaching the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was unable to consider the application. Even if the procedural requirements had been met, the evidence showed that the vehicle was valued by a registered appraiser as a non-running, high-mileage vehicle and sold at public auction for more than the appraised value. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable to expect the Respondent to obtain prices matching published dealer values for a vehicle in poor...

Citation
[2014] ZANCT 7
Parties
Applicant: Bonga Nkanyiso Mdletshe; Respondent: Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd
Court
National Consumer Tribunal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 January 2014
Case Number
NCT/9163/2013/128(1)(P) NCA
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Preliminary Points
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
F Manamela, J Simpson, X May
Legal Topics
National Credit Act, Repossession of Goods, Best Price Reasonably Obtainable, Condonation, Lis Pendens
Banking and Finance Civil Procedure National Credit Act Repossession of Goods Best Price Reasonably Obtainable Condonation Lis Pendens

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bonga Nkanyiso Mdletshe

Applicant

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Final Judgment After Hearing on Merits and Preliminary Points

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Did the Respondent sell the repossessed vehicle for the best price reasonably obtainable as required by section 127(4)(b) of the National Credit Act?
  2. 2 Did the Applicant comply with the procedural requirements of section 128 of the National Credit Act before approaching the Tribunal?
  3. 3 Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to hear the matter in light of pending litigation in the High Court (lis pendens)?

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Applicant failed to comply with the procedural requirements of section 128 of the National Credit Act, as there was no evidence of a genuine attempt to resolve the dispute with the credit provider prior to approaching the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal was unable to consider the application. Even if the procedural requirements had been met, the evidence showed that the vehicle was valued by a registered appraiser as a non-running, high-mileage vehicle and sold at public auction for more than the appraised value. The Tribunal held that it was unreasonable to expect the Respondent to obtain prices matching published dealer values for a vehicle in poor...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application for a finding that the credit provider did not sell the goods at the best price reasonably obtainable is dismissed.
  • No order is made as to costs.